As I was reading "Writing Processes and Practices" from The Politics of Writing by Clark Romy and Roz Ivanic, I took a moment to consider my view on writing as a procedure or writing as a practice. I will start by saying that I do agree, entirely, with the viewpoint of Romy and Ivanic. However, I really had to consider "why?"
The first thing I realized is the negative connotation of "procedure." Procedure seems so military-like to me. It's a set order or a set way to doing something. So is writing a procedure? My argument is no. There are a million and one different styles/genres of writing. If writing were a procedure, what is the point of writing as creativity or writing as enjoyment? There would be none. Writing would be just walking through a set of rules or lessons in order to get to some climatic point. The problem I find with writing as a procedure is "what's the point?"
Writing as a practice is something to which I can definitely relate. When thinking of a soccer team (or any sport in general), they are always practicing for the game. Even if they win a game or a tournament, they still practice. Practice is the ability to grow and learn. So, in writing, it is the ability to be creative. It is the ability grow as a thinker, an analyzer. Instead of just following the rules and that being the end result (procedures), practice gives the writer a new experience each time he/she sits down to write.